Posted on 12/31/2020 3:14:56 AM PST by impimp
It’s just the flu, bro.
https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2020/12/30/why-picking-your-nose-isnt-just-gross-its-dangerous-in-the-time-of-coronavirus/
Fear porn: Nose picking is dangerous because of Coronavirus. The reality is that I will never give up one of the great pleasures in my life.
-
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/88-year-old-dies-hours-after-covid-vaccination-in-second-such-incident-653721
These people who die of heart attacks right after receiving the COVID vaccine...I think these will be classified as COVID deaths.
https://dnyuz.com/2020/12/29/nursing-home-patients-are-dying-of-loneliness/
Nursing home patients are dying of loneliness...I think these will be classified as COVID deaths.
-
Just a reminder - Coronavirus is an overblown hoax and all of the rules and protocols put in place to “protect” us are a pile of trash.
PCR is a pack of lies because it gives false positives...how can someone deny this truth?
Getting seasonal flu shot increases risk of cv19.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209321/
Not surprising, because vaccines trade away overall immunity and wellness for short-term partial immunity for the things vaccinated against.
The best way to avoid getting sick is to eat properly, get fresh air and sun, get exercise, keep blood levels of vitamin C and D up, maintain zinc and other nutrients intake (regular diet will not accomplish this) and avoid most advice from conventional MDs. It is never too late to get started.
The issue if that the PCR test as currently run does not tell if a positive result is dead, alive, or even the Wuhan flu.
With the cuttent CT number a papay, a goat,and coke have elicited a positive test.
The issue also is that the PTB have designated a positive test as a CASE. In medicine traditionally a CASE is a sick person and that is how the PTB refer to a CASE. The number of cases has been used to create a panic / pandemic / casedemic.
If you want a better way do it the old fashioned way.
Great Video
Thank you for the links
“If you want a better way do it the old fashioned way.”
You assume that the conventional MDs who post here are principled, objective, open-minded, interested in truth. That is just not my experience with conventional MDs. I’ll never forget when we interviewed my son’s Pediatrician, and I asked him what form the vitamin K shot for newborns came in. He had no clue - just injects newborns with the K1 shot “because it is their practice”. Just hemmed a bit and then looked it up...then told us we should just trust our pediatrician. Ummm, no. He did end up working with us on the vaccine issue though.
I know of people who have been fired as adults from their family MD because they questioned being put on prescribed Pharma. Those MDs presumably were not accustomed to being questioned by lay people, and did not like being exposed as nothing more than a prescription writer with a medical diploma on the wall.
Not all conventional medicine is bad. I would not want to go anywhere else for trauma care. But for immunity, illness and chronic-type stuff? No thanks.
With facts? RT-PCR does not give "false positives". It does give a lot of false negatives, particularly early on after infection. False negative rate is ~100% on day 1 of infection. It's ~67% by day 4 after infection. ~21% false negative rate after symptoms begin. There are limitations with RT-PCR, but false positives are not an issue. The specificity for RT-PCR and specifically for the SARS-CoV-2 testing makes that all but impossible.
The RT-PCR test for COVID-19 determines whether you have SARS-CoV-2 genetic material present at the site of testing. It does so with very high specificity. It is not a test which is designed to tell you how many virions are present in the whole body. It is it not a test that tells you whether the individual's genetics and physiology will result in symptoms - severe or otherwise - from the COVID-19 infection. Its one and only purpose is to determine whether RNA which is only found in SARS-CoV-2 is present at the sample collection point. It does that job well.
You're correct that the RT-PCR test does not distinguish between active and inactive virions (as a virus does not meet the criteria for being "alive"). However, you're incorrect to say that it doesn't tell you whether it's SARS-CoV-2. It does, when run properly. The test triggers off genetic sequences only found in SARS-CoV-2. They're literally the sequences that make SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2 and not something else (like SARS-CoV-1 or MERS-CoV).
"The issue also is that the PTB have designated a positive test as a CASE. In medicine traditionally a CASE is a sick person and that is how the PTB refer to a CASE."
What constitutes a "case" for any particular illness varies from disease to disease. Always has. Take a look at the CDC's Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice. This is decades-old stuff. Here is a WHO document outlining case definitions for several diseases. Each has its own individual criteria. This is how everything works.
The case definition for SARS-CoV-2 is actually a bit more complicated than "did they have a test?" That criteria is listed here. It includes criteria to distinguish between a new case and an existing case and a laboratory test is not the be-all end-all of the case definition.
"If you want a better way do it the old fashioned way."
This IS the "old fashioned way". You define the criteria for the specific disease and apply it consistently. That's how it's worked for decades.
But if you are asymptomatic and the viral load is too low to make you infectious then only a lunatic would say a positive test is appropriate.
A lack of symptoms does not automatically mean you are not contagious. In fact, the most contagious period for COVID-19 appears to be before symptoms actually begin (for those who develop symptoms). For the 40% of people who never develop outward facing symptoms, somewhere between 30-50% of them will develop internal damage, particularly in the lungs. This usually heals quickly and isn’t a big deal, but were those individuals ever contagious? That’s an unanswered question right now.
As for this question around viral load, the RT-PCR test is not designed to determine how many virions are present in your body. Thus far, no one has a test capable of doing so without massively expensive and time-consuming study. If you have a test that’s capable of doing so as quickly, cheaply, and accurately as the RT-PCR test is able to identify the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA at the site of collection, I urge you to market it immediately. Such a test would be wonderful to have and would make you a billionaire.
So far, nobody else on Earth has managed such a feat. Maybe you’ll be the first. Until then, the best available diagnostic tool we have to determine whether someone is infected with SARS-CoV-2 is the RT-PCR test. It has its limitations (mostly related to the number of infections it actually misses), but it’s the best anyone has managed to come up with so far.
Thanks for the reminder.
I tend to forget that I have fired MD’s because they were rigid and uncompromising.
From my perspective, not all conventional medicine is bad. It can even help with some chronic conditions. However I prefer to use exercise, good nutrition, supplements first with conventional medicine as an add on if needed.
Regarding prescription writers with an MD on the wall, John D {competition is a sin} Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie would be proud of the changes wrought by the Flexner Report they commissioned.
https://www.cancertutor.com/flexner-report/
https://www.corbettreport.com/how-big-oil-conquered-the-world/
re : But if you are asymptomatic and the viral load is too low to make you infectious then only a lunatic would say a positive test is appropriate.
***
You are correct as regards respiratory viruses.
“there is scant, if any, evidence that asymptomatic or presymptomatic individuals play an important role in influenza transmission. “
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2646474/
The near mythical asymptomatic carrier is the result of faulty reporting in the NWJM
https://www.dw.com/en/germany-flawed-coronavirus-study-spread-misinformation/a-52265727
In June even WHO admitted that their ASSUMPTION of equal transmission from symptomatic individuals and asymptomatic individuals was not accurate.
“In June even WHO admitted that their ASSUMPTION of equal transmission from symptomatic individuals and asymptomatic individuals was not accurate.”
Recall that about a day later, they reversed this...”because the science”, you know.
Every liberal I know was happy about the plandemic, happy that the “experts” claimed there was no treatment, happy to think the plandemic would hurt Trump. All eager to wear their masks as well, even while driving alone. You might think the public health “experts” would have discouraged that particular practice. Not a single conventional MD that I ran across in social media had any problem with it, either. Surely there were a few?
Technocracy has its pluses I suppose.
You're welcome.
"Warning - The links on this page are valuable sources of information but there is no guarantee that all of the information provided is the truth. The truth is elusive at best and if you wish to find it you must listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research."
"This is the age of deception. We are engaged in an information war. Links will take you to many other websites containing varying degrees of personal belief, religious dogma, truth, lies, misinformation, and disinformation. We urge you to practice due diligence in your quest for truth." (Warnings credited to William Cooper)
Re: “The test triggers off genetic sequences only found in SARS-CoV-2. They’re literally the sequences that make SARS-CoV-2 SARS-CoV-2 and not something else (like SARS-CoV-1 or MERS-CoV).”
***
Where did you get this information ? Link please .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.